President Donald Trump

[Kevin Seitzer]

Big win for the Democrats on this. The next Democratic President will have the authority to declare an emergency on guns, or climate or whatever the cause of the day is and will have a solid precedent with which to do so. All it cost was a couple hundred miles of wall that, let’s be honest, all the Democrats in the Senate have previously voted for (in spite of its ‘immorality’, lol). Reminds me a lot of Harry Reid’s filibuster gaffe. Small win in the short term for Trump, but huge loss for the GOP (and really, all of us that believe in the traditions and power of our government in the long run). I am as anti-illegal immigration as anyone in here, but this is a terrible move.

This isn't a big win for any American. We all lose.

[nots]

This isn't a big win for any American. We all lose.

Disagree completely. Democrats have a ‘get out of jail free’card they didn’t have yesterday. That’s a huge win for them.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Disagree completely. Democrats have a ‘get out of jail free’card they didn’t have yesterday. That’s a huge win for them.

It deeply undercuts one of the fundamental pillars of our constitutional system, but we got a little more power out of it to do what we want down the road, so hey...party in the streets, I guess? anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

[heyelander]

Hopefully it's just used to underscore the hypocrisy of small government argument and never actually employed.

[nots]

It deeply undercuts one of the fundamental pillars of our constitutional system, but we got a little more power out of it to do what we want down the road, so hey...party in the streets, I guess? anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

I agree it does, but that doesn’t matter in the current climate.

[revo]

Serious question -- if Trump calls a "national emergency" and circumvents Congress to build his wall, is there a reason why, say in political retaliation, a Democratic president in the future couldn't declare a National Emergency after a mass shooting and take everyone's guns away?

Hmmmm......

"Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday issued a warning to Republicans poised to support President Trump's decision to declare a national emergency at the southern border: the next Democratic president, she said, could do the same on guns.

"A Democratic president can declare emergencies, as well," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. "So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans."

Pelosi noted that Thursday marked the one-year anniversary of the shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 students and faculty dead. She argued that the real national emergency is not illegal border crossings, but gun violence in the U.S.

"Let's talk about today: The one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America," Pelosi said. "That's a national emergency. Why don't you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would.

"But a Democratic president can do that."

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/430098-pelosi-warns-gop-next-president-could-declare-national-emergency-on-guns

[Judge Jude]

"Serious question -- if Trump calls a "national emergency" and circumvents Congress to build his wall, is there a reason why, say in political retaliation, a Democratic president in the future couldn't declare a National Emergency after a mass shooting and take everyone's guns away?"

um, that's probably not a good example given the likely.... fallout.

[revo]

"Serious question -- if Trump calls a "national emergency" and circumvents Congress to build his wall, is there a reason why, say in political retaliation, a Democratic president in the future couldn't declare a National Emergency after a mass shooting and take everyone's guns away?"

um, that's probably not a good example given the likely.... fallout.

Not trying to rehash that part, just showing that it’s something that’s in the minds of the opposition.

[Judge Jude]

if anything close to 'take everyone's guns away' is even 1 percent in the minds of the opposition, I'd appreciate a heads-up so my family and I can flee the country with all our belongings ahead of the civil war.

and to be clear, I was quoting Revo, iirc. obviously I can't imagine anything so harebrained.

[revo]

if anything close to 'take everyone's guns away' is even 1 percent in the minds of the opposition, I'd appreciate a heads-up so my family and I can flee the country with all our belongings ahead of the civil war.

and to be clear, I was quoting Revo, iirc. obviously I can't imagine anything so harebrained.

You missed the entire discussion. What about if the Dems want to ban assault rifles, like what happened between 1994-2004? Is that harebrained? Or enact amazingly strict gun buying laws? Harebrained? What if the Dems decide not to ban guns....but ban ammo? Harebrained?

[Judge Jude]

any of these "quid pro quo" silly power grabs would be stupid - not that Trump and his henchmen don't have it coming to them.

but as dopey as it is to declare an emergency like this, the impact on the lives of 99.9 pct of Americans is.... zero. it's terrible philosophically, mainly.

making a silly power grab outside of Congress that actually impacts millions of citizens? that would be lunacy cubed x cubed.

that's why they call it "derangement syndrome."

"he did something so absurd that to retaliate, we should in a couple of years do something that will upend the entire fabric of the U.S. culture - without any input from Congress, as Constitutionally mandated. it'll be so fun, because revenge against a childish President beats the heck out of governing like adults, doesn't it?!"

now, if an all-D executive and legislative branch wants to be so bold - sure, they can do that.
then again, they could have made decisions on a lot of issues under 2 Obama years like, oh - immigration - and chose not to. and they could have gone even bolder than they did against guns, but they passed.

interesting, that.

[Fresno Bob]

lets start with manditory vaccinations then, we have a national medical emergency where diseases we thought we had wiped out are returning, ok with that? slippery slope.....

[DMT]

any of these "quid pro quo" silly power grabs would be stupid - not that Trump and his henchmen don't have it coming to them.

but as dopey as it is to declare an emergency like this, the impact on the lives of 99.9 pct of Americans is.... zero. it's terrible philosophically, mainly.

making a silly power grab outside of Congress that actually impacts millions of citizens? that would be lunacy cubed x cubed.

that's why they call it "derangement syndrome."

"he did something so absurd that to retaliate, we should in a couple of years do something that will upend the entire fabric of the U.S. culture - without any input from Congress, as Constitutionally mandated. it'll be so fun, because revenge against a childish President beats the heck out of governing like adults, doesn't it?!"

now, if an all-D executive and legislative branch wants to be so bold - sure, they can do that.
then again, they could have made decisions on a lot of issues under 2 Obama years like, oh - immigration - and chose not to. and they could have gone even bolder than they did against guns, but they passed.

interesting, that.

Nah, instead let's let one side play by rules and the other side do whatever the fuck they want.

[baldgriff]

Nah, instead let's let one side play by rules and the other side do whatever the fuck they want.

Neither have played by the rules........

They only worry about how their side is going to win.

[swampdragon]

I don't feel safe teaching now that there has been a declared National Emergency - How do I protect my students?